Metareview: Hellgate: London

59 Comments by Alexander Sliwinski Nov 3rd 2007 11:55AM
Filed under: PC, Adventure, Metareviews

Hellgate: London sprang forth on Wednesday and, well, reviews have been skewing average. Hellgate changed a bit over the years. Then there's the details of its optional subscription program and what it means for the game in the long term. Hellgate is now out there for the consumers to vote with their wallets during this cluttered holiday season. As for the reviewers, they don't seem to hate the game, but do get hung up on pesky flaws that pile up.

EuroGamer (70/100): "Our reservations are balanced out against the obvious talent and effort that has been ploughed into the game - and the simple fact that every time we put Hellgate down, either during its extended beta period or while reviewing it, we were itching to get back to it within hours. It's compulsive, it's good fun and it's certainly addictive; perhaps as the online service evolves, it'll even be worth coming back to for a further evaluation. For now, though, this is a game too deeply flawed to deserve the masterpiece status we'd all hoped for."
Game Daily (70/100): "It's easy to write Hellgate off as a mediocre game, but the truth is it's not altogether bad. In fact, it has some truly excellent innovations, like the item augmentation system that can imbue common items with special properties. Hellgate also has a machine that increases the level of an item, so players don't have to ditch useful armor or weapons because they outgrew them. Additionally, the game has a fantastically wicked sense of humor that comes out in the NPC dialogue. The problem is, the game tries to be a little bit of everything, but no one aspect gets fully developed."
GameSpy (60/100): "Sadly, nothing says that Hellgate: London was pushed out the door too early better than the buggy state of the game's multiplayer. Since the game was pushed live on October 30, the multiplayer servers have been plagued by registration problems and downtime (which, naturally, results in the official site and forums getting overloaded and crashing). More problematic are a couple of nasty bugs including frequent crashes to desktop, slowdown and lag during combat and a weird display bug that makes all the character models on screen disappear, leaving the player as just a disembodied weapon floating in mid-air. GameSpy editor Fargo ran into a reproducible bug where he'd actually lose one of his weapons every time he was dual-wielding and logged off, which, as bugs go, is an inexplicable gamebreaker."

Tags: hellgate, hellgatelondon, metareview

Read

(Page 1) Reader Comments

Jeff: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:11PM

Wow. Game reviews are garbage.

This is an amazing game, but it is still buggy as hell (pun intended). Once some patches are out it will be heavenly (some more pun), and the reviewers should have made note of this and taken it into account in their scares. It is very addictive and immersive; the storyline is phenomenal and the quests are great; the graphics are the best an RPG of that kind has ever seen; the multiplayer elements are a fun addition the single-player game-- and finally, something about it just feels right. That indescribable thing that separates a good game from a great game.

Clack: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:50PM

Sorry, I disagree. More developers should grow a set and release a game 'when its ready' rather than when their publisher says it better be ready. Game reviews based on the shipping product should be a review of the product as-is, not what the product could turn out to be.

Bc: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:30PM

EA is publishing this games which means it comes out when they say. Flagship would of course waited to fix all the bugs, but selling a "HEll" game on Halloween was just too much for EA, they had to get it out the door.

Atra: Nov 3rd 2007; 4:03PM

I agree with Clack, while I understand they were probably under pressure by the publisher to release at this time, before it's ready, you can't review a game based on what it could turn out to be. Sure, you can mention during the review how certain fixes which are probably expected could drastically improve the game, but you can't let that affect the overall score.

As it stands from what I've read, this game will likely make a good purchase during the often barren Jan/February period, when the sales are on and patches have hopefully brought the game up to a more playable and enjoyable standard. Right now though it seems a rather risky purchase, as even if you enjoy the gameplay, the numerous technical problems may frustrate you and ruin the experience.

Sagan: Nov 3rd 2007; 5:58PM

I agree that the game should be reviewed as-is. But that also means, that reviewers should revisit the game when patches come out.

Because lets say, that most of these bugs are fixed a year from now. If however the review still claims, that the game is buggy, then the review will be simply wrong.

However it seems, that there are some issues with this game other than just bugs. I will definitely play the game anyway. Simply because I'm curious about it, and because my brother has got it.

Sagan: Nov 3rd 2007; 6:02PM

Ihar `Philips` Filipau: Nov 3rd 2007; 9:06PM

My experience is that if game was released raw prematurely - patches will do not much to change that.

My /recent/ example is NWN2. It was crashing when it was released (1.01). And it is still crashing with 1.05 patch. Sadly, reviews didn't even mentioned the instability of game.

Or older example of MOM3...

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo): Nov 4th 2007; 2:05AM

"Wow. Game reviews are garbage."

You're absolutely right. Because god forbid anyone disagrees with your opinion.

Jojo: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:24PM

Since launch I think I've logged 30 or so hours. I LOVE LOVE LOVE this game. It is buggy, but what multi-player game isn't at launch! My marksman is looking pretty bad-ass. I can't wait to create summoner, blademaster, guardian... oh man. I gotta get back to playing.

Word Up, North Korea!: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:30PM

I pre-ordered this game but still haven't gotten it (never order from bestbuy.com)...anyway, looking back Diablo 2 only got mid 80s scores, and If that's not a perfect 10 in its genre then nothing is

I'm willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt

Jeff: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:54PM

Did it? Wow, that makes me feel a bit less like cutting throats.

I think this reflects well on videogames. In how many other types of art are critics' opinions actually worth crap? None, imho, and it looks like videogames are joining them.

NukeAssault: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:42PM

I didint like it. I got in the beta... wasent as good as i hoped. Glad to see i wasent the only one.

Paul: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:44PM

Some bugs I'm willing to look past, but a bug where your equipment disappears on logout? Come on! Where's the testing?!

Jeff: Nov 3rd 2007; 12:52PM

There was tons of testing. Something like that is hard to nail all the bugs out.

And besides, EA probably pushed them too hard for that release date. And sure, games should be judged on the product released, but tons of reviews make accommodations for future patches, why shouldn't this one?

Paul: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:23PM

You should review the content you receive, not the content that may show up in a future patch. You should inform your readers of the bugs in the game, and dock them for the bugs, regardless of whether or not they say they'll fix it.

I'll state the bug again, you let me know if you think it would be an easy catch.

"where he'd actually lose one of his weapons every time he was dual-wielding and logged off"

Explained more simply:

"During gameplay, if the user's character is wielding a weapon in each hand, the user logs off, and logs back in, one of the user's weapons disappears."

How often are you dual wielding while you play? I know that I was dual wielding for most of the time when I played the demo.

Bigfoot: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:00PM

Anyone remember when Diablo 2 first launched? The game was pretty much unplayable online at launch.

k0sm0s: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:09PM

i agree with the reviews, i preordered for launch, i had a hell long wait, and finally got my game, and was disappointed while i played

boring map layout sure does an issue,the fact you enter a tube is boring enough, and finally reached a real nice arena for battle against demons, and the next stage, another tube.. really boring

but yet i'm still playing the game. horrible maps, but yet you still continue playing.. i believe the developer would do their best to improve on this game as they did for diablo.

Ihar `Philips` Filipau: Nov 3rd 2007; 9:10PM

> horrible maps

that stinks of realism ^_^

Blazur: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:18PM

Screw this game and their crappy online subscription.

NeuroMan42: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:23PM

I fully agree with the reviews, I would even give it a lower tating also. I was in the Alpha and through to launch and this game is just a horrible copy of Diablo. Which is sad since the folks that MADE the Diablo series made this steaming pile.

Uninspired maps, textures, quests, cut & pasted NPCs from Diablo and a joke of a subscription service. I was actually looking forward to this... that is what ya get with the hype-train rolls into town. ;)

Shawn: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:26PM

i'm about 20 hours in and I love it. Yes it's got technical issues a plenty, but the core gameplay is fun as hell. They shouldn't have released it already, but it's also stuff they can fix.

Alan: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:29PM

Definitely worth my $39.99 at circuit city. I am starting to feel the disappointment though as I play through and realize that all the bugs, lack of unique tilesets, and lack of polish is keeping this from being my Diablo II replacement. I hope they they give it some monthly TLC and it will be worth playing 6 months from now.

Last night I met an NPC "Rob Someone" in the Templar base that had the same voice as George from the Holborn station. I highly doubt they're the same person so them having the same voice just gave the game an "amateur" vibe for me. It's little things like that that make me glad I only paid $39.99. Correct me if they are indeed the same person. haha.

gonk: Nov 3rd 2007; 1:41PM

so maybe after 6 months when this (hopefully) gets some major patches, it might be worth trying

good to know

Rob: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:02PM

"reviews have been skewing average."

Strike me down with fiery wrath if I'm wrong, but that link to metacritic is showing 73% average score. If this game was 'average', wouldn't it be showing up with a score of 50% or thereabouts?

And I know 'official' magazines/websites tend to push the scores up a couple of notches (Red Steel getting above 90% in the Official UK Nintendo Magazine my case in point), but an average of 73% strikes me as pretty good.

To put this in perspective, Edge magazine gave Metroid Prime 3 and Sega Rally 7/10, and Skate 8/10. If this game is up with those, that gives it pretty good company in my eyes.

umm....hello???: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:17PM

umm...you've gone to school, no?? 75% IS average ("C" average). Anything below 70% is below average...50 and below is failing....

...and sure, if you want to base your buying on ONE publication, then that's your loss. Metacritic reviews said the game was fun and addicting, but it had its flaws--and how would you score a game with perfect graphics, perfect layout, perfect music, perfect dialogue, but crappy controls that make the game unplayable (*looks at LAIR*)?? 70% or 40%?? The reviews are subjective, so to lump this game with MP3's is stupid.

...and I agree with most others here--the game should be reviewed as shipped, and WHEN or IF they patch the game, the review could have an UPDATE. I'm sick as hell of all this "push out the door" and "patch later" crap--it's why I stuck to console gaming rather than getting into all the PC games. And where do all those patches go? on my limited space harddrive (*stares at PS360*) rather than on a disc. A disturbing trend.

Rob: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:33PM

Yes, thank you, I've been to school. And for that reason, I know that an 'average' score out of 10 is 5. If it's above average, it's somewhere between 5 and 10, and if it's below average it's between 0 and 5. On a scale of 1 to 10, 7 is good - not great, but good.

I don't base my buying on one publication, I buy two magazines (Edge and GamesTM, the best in the country), and I read online reviews, so I'm not really losing anything out there.

And why is lumping this in with MP3 stupid? I personally think it deserves more than 7/10, but as each review is subjective, it's being credited within it's own genre and style of play. It's a good shooter/adventure/platformer, Sega Rally is a good racing game, and (judging by the 'average' reviews - I haven't played it), this looks to be a good FPS/MMO.

Should we have some kind of a poll? What does everyone think is an 'average' score? And I don't mean which games do you play and buy - 90% of my collection scores 80% or above in both magazine and online reviews - but if a game was distinctly average, would you see a score of 7/10 or 5/10? It'd be interesting to see, as a 70% average gives you less scope to differentiate between the better games.

Mr Khan: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:52PM

These reviewers tend to run by the School system, though. I.E. on most scales, a 70% is the bottom end of acceptable, and anything below that is an essay in just how shitty the game actually is

I still say we scrap this whole review system, all over the net

WiNG: Nov 3rd 2007; 4:37PM

"I know that an 'average' score out of 10 is 5."

Actually, "average" is what the reviewers who invented their scoring system says it is. If they say, "on a scale from 1 to 10, 3 is AWESOME and 10 is PEFECT, and 2 is AVERAGE" then that's how it works

99% of review sites trest 7 as playable, 6 as iffy, and 5 or less as failure. Believe what you want, but the reason so few games get a "2" and a lot get 4 or 5, is because there is not point to rating something below 5, unless it is a godforsaken shit storm like Big Rigs Racing. Just like how your teacher might give you a 55 instead of a 13, to say "you failed" without screwing over your average.

glutto: Nov 3rd 2007; 5:51PM

I could have sworn that the average of the numbers 0 and 10 equals 5.

Let's see....
(0 + 10) / 2 = 5

Yup. 5 is considered average.

rivaldi22: Nov 3rd 2007; 6:28PM

Okay, I think this needs clearing up.

An average REVIEW implies that the game's quality is AVERAGE among all other games, which is around 7/10 or so.

It is NOT saying that, in all of the possible scores it could receive (i.e., 1 through 10) it receives the average OF THE SCORES, which is 5.

For the love of crap, take a goddamn statistics class and learn about distribution. PLEASE.

LAZoftheTamarinds: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:15PM

Well this is a dissapointment. The ads of this game got me really interested. But I will be able to try it myself and see what I think about it when my friend gets his copy.

cwolf267: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:23PM

I've never understood why bugs in a PC game negatively affect its review, but seem to be completely ignored in console reviews. Most 360 games are riddled with bugs at least a month after launch, and you never hear anything about it in reviews.

Burritoclock: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:40PM

Most? Please name two with bugs anywhere near the ones described here. I shall wait.

cwolf267: Nov 3rd 2007; 4:05PM

Team Fortress 2, Saints Row, Call of Duty 3, Far Cry... Should I go on?

PC reviews always take bugs into account, yet I've rarely seen a console review that talks about bugs. Yes, most bugs are seen when the games released, and they get patched withing a month or two, but still, PC games get their score lowered for bugs like this, while console reviewers keep consumers completely oblivious to any bugs they encounter, unless the game is completely unplayable because of it.

Ihar `Philips` Filipau: Nov 3rd 2007; 9:17PM

> PC reviews always take bugs into account

That's NOT true. Mention of bugs - yes.

In fact reviews factor in bugs into rating rarely - selectively and only if they stand in a way of game play.

Mr. Countdown: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:30PM

I've been playing a Blademaster with dual wield for the past couple of days (Level 12 - woot!) and I've never had a sword disappear. I got worried when I saw this review, so I crawled through the game's forums and didn't see anyone else talking about this problem. I wonder if the reviewer didn't find some rare bug - but that's the problem with a game this big and this random. You can't test for every possible instance, and with all the random properties on items, something probably got screwy.

I've been having a great time playing, which is why I don't put much stock in review, and especially scores. Some of my favorite movies and games of all times weren't critical hits. I tend to ask my friends who I know have the same tastes as I do and see what they think. I also READ all of the reviews, and the one thing that has been said in just about every one is that they can't stop playing the game because it is so fun. I have to agree - issues aside - the game is a total blast!

Jonah Falcon: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:35PM

If I may, here's my review:

http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/11/02/review-hellgate-london-pc/

(2.5 stars out of 5)

Jonah Falcon: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:48PM

I've also been hearing great things about The Witcher, so if you want a Diablo-type action-RPG, check out its reviews.

RankHypocrisy: Nov 5th 2007; 10:46AM

The Witcher is an AWESOME game, in my opinion, but if you're expecting it to be Diablo 2, you will be disappointed.

It is not a hack & slash game like D2 or Titan Quest; rather, it is an old-school single-player RPG. It has more in common with Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape:Torment than Diablo 2.

Stranger678: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:50PM

It may not be Game of the Year or anything like that, but for me it scratches that Diablo II itch real well. I have been loggin hours with different character types and the different playstyles seem to give this game a lot of depth. I enjoy it. I may be in the minority, but this is one game I will be subscribing too.

Jonah Falcon: Nov 3rd 2007; 2:58PM

"but for me it scratches that Diablo II itch real well"

Do you mean the original Diablo? Because Diablo II has far more variety and class development than Hellgate.

Far more.

WiNG: Nov 3rd 2007; 4:38PM

IMO If you have a Diablo 2 itch, play Diablo 2. It's still fun and people pretty much GIVE AWAY all but the rarest things online.

Ihar `Philips` Filipau: Nov 3rd 2007; 9:20PM

> If you have a Diablo 2 itch, play Diablo 2.

The raster 2D 800x600 graphics looks terrible on my 1680x1050 wide screen.

:(

muppetmeth: Nov 3rd 2007; 5:51PM

Eh, Diablo 2 was pissed on by reviewers too. I don't think I'll pick Hellgate up though.

Jonah Falcon: Nov 18th 2007; 9:43PM

Um, no.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/197113.asp?q=diablo%20ii

Please, stop making baseless comments.

Einhanderkiller: Nov 3rd 2007; 6:11PM

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes was pissed on all over by reviewers for being buggy and broken, too, but after a couple of patches, I hear that it's gotten a lot better.

gonk: Nov 4th 2007; 12:55AM

yeah but don't they have barely anyone playing it?

Shawn: Nov 3rd 2007; 6:24PM

Some of the best games of all time, Vampire The Masquerade for instance, is one the best RPG's around, yet it got killed in reviews for being released buggy. Right now, I don't know of any other game that has as much legs as it does though, and it's still fun as shit to play. Same thing with the Fallout series(1 and 2). Didn't get very good reviews, yet is the home of some of the most rabid fan base around, and obviously favorites among many to say the least.

When I was younger, I took reviews much more seriously, but as I've gotten older, I tend to take them with a grain of salt. A lot of people are upset as their expectations to overtake Diablo have definitely clouded judgment. This isn't as good as Diablo was when it released, but it's still a damn fun game. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who likes Diablo or more recently Titan Quest. The looting is definitely addictive, and there's always an appeal to get more. Hopefully new content adds variety to the game, which i'm sure they will given the current complaints.

Brennan: Nov 3rd 2007; 8:55PM

this game isnt that bad, though i do recall the bugs being a problem, i love the game!!

im still waiting for my copy to come in still from Wal-Mart darn it.

the biggest complaint from these reviews, since i am a huge D2 n now HG:L fan, there will always be bugs, n online may not be right when the game first comes out. Flagship (former Diablo creators) have said that there is future content n fixes in the works, so DO EXPECT THE GAME TO BE A LOT BETTER LATER.

BananaBoat: Nov 3rd 2007; 10:59PM

Bugs that make weapons dissapear? Laggy servers that make it so you are running around without a character model? Are you kidding me? For a title that was made by guys that were involved with some of the most influential games ever in the past (Diablo for instance) this is inexcusable.

I was PSYCHED for this game, but after all the poor reviews, the TERRIBLE demo, and just the general feeling of "Meh" going around the internet, I think I will pass on this one.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments